Cancel the FOAS study contracts - it's obvious!
Thread Starter
Cancel the FOAS study contracts - it's obvious!
I read that the first of 32 B-1Bs being withdrawn from the USAF inventory has arrived at the USAF museum. About eight have been allocated to museums, the rest to the Boneyard.
Let's keep a three-squadron GR.Mk 4/4A wing (spreading the flying hours by putting the remainder in storage) and augment it with a two squadron wing of B-1Bs......
Let's keep a three-squadron GR.Mk 4/4A wing (spreading the flying hours by putting the remainder in storage) and augment it with a two squadron wing of B-1Bs......
Champagne anyone...?
Or, perhaps we could some consortium together and get them on a PFI deal as that's all the rage at the moment??
When they're not being used to annihilate the enemies of freedom they could be used to carry the fare-paying shell-suited masses to Majorka. I reckon you could probably get about 80 of the blighters in the weapons bay; possibly more if they're greased up with all their excess chip fat......
When they're not being used to annihilate the enemies of freedom they could be used to carry the fare-paying shell-suited masses to Majorka. I reckon you could probably get about 80 of the blighters in the weapons bay; possibly more if they're greased up with all their excess chip fat......
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must have been mad to turn down this offer. Instead we are going to spend squillions on two bloody great carriers with a few F35s, with minimal offensive capability. And why do these VTOL aircraft need 950 ft of deck, anyway?
Thread Starter
And we could probably have bought new build B-1s for the cost of the carriers and JSFs.....
So second hand B-1s and Gripens instead of JSF?
So second hand B-1s and Gripens instead of JSF?
Thing is, FV, secondhand B-1s wouldn't win the British defence cartel any jobs-for-BWoS or other companies to keep Toady and Buff's idiot supporters happy.........
No - we'll keep the thoroughly inadequate Bore-nado staggering on. Beacuse that'll keep 't bungling baron Waste-o'-space in brass. And in any case, the precious pointy-heads wouldn't be seen dead in any aircraft where you don't have to climb in through the window!!
No - we'll keep the thoroughly inadequate Bore-nado staggering on. Beacuse that'll keep 't bungling baron Waste-o'-space in brass. And in any case, the precious pointy-heads wouldn't be seen dead in any aircraft where you don't have to climb in through the window!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: N. Europe
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Just out of interest, how many bods does it take to crew a B1B ? Isn´t it four or five aircrew including two pilots?
Would the RAF be able to provide enough crews to man this B1B fleet?
Just out of interest, how many bods does it take to crew a B1B ? Isn´t it four or five aircrew including two pilots?
Would the RAF be able to provide enough crews to man this B1B fleet?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The limiting factor for B-1B service life is the lower wing surface, which is lifed at15,000 hours. The average (as of December 2001) age per airframe is 3700 hours. Average airframe flying hours per year are 420 hours, resulting in 15,000 hours being reached in about 27 years (2029). FOAS is only expected to enter service in around 2015 with a required service life of around 30 years, the B-1 is therefore unsuitable.
In the short term, the costs of introducing an additional airframe type would be considerable, far outweighing any negligible savings achieved in retiring a couple of GR4 sqns.
Politically and militarily there's no case for it, because the USAF already performs the role when involved in coalition operations and there is no national requirement for a conventional strategic bomber and the nuclear role is covered by Trident.
It's not stealthy and it's also got ECM problems, the planned EW upgrade with a towed decoy is in trouble with both houses cutting funding and is likely to be chopped. (The fleet reduction was to release $1.5-2 billion for planned upgrades through 2007 - but the funds are being diverted elsewhere.
Seeing a VC-10 tanking 2 B-1s would, indeed, be a miracle, seeing as they require a boom and the VC-10 only has hoses. Due to the airframe design fitting a probe would be horrifically expensive. It would be cheaper to buy a couple of dedicated tankers; so add in the price of either a couple of KC-135s or the addition of a boom to the requirements for 2 or 3 of the FSTA aircraft. Assuming any additional range was required of course.
So it's vulnerable, is unsuitable for our needs and will need billions thrown at it for EW and avionic updates and service life extensions.
Sounds like a perfect candidate based on previous procurement decisions.
In the short term, the costs of introducing an additional airframe type would be considerable, far outweighing any negligible savings achieved in retiring a couple of GR4 sqns.
Politically and militarily there's no case for it, because the USAF already performs the role when involved in coalition operations and there is no national requirement for a conventional strategic bomber and the nuclear role is covered by Trident.
It's not stealthy and it's also got ECM problems, the planned EW upgrade with a towed decoy is in trouble with both houses cutting funding and is likely to be chopped. (The fleet reduction was to release $1.5-2 billion for planned upgrades through 2007 - but the funds are being diverted elsewhere.
Seeing a VC-10 tanking 2 B-1s would, indeed, be a miracle, seeing as they require a boom and the VC-10 only has hoses. Due to the airframe design fitting a probe would be horrifically expensive. It would be cheaper to buy a couple of dedicated tankers; so add in the price of either a couple of KC-135s or the addition of a boom to the requirements for 2 or 3 of the FSTA aircraft. Assuming any additional range was required of course.
So it's vulnerable, is unsuitable for our needs and will need billions thrown at it for EW and avionic updates and service life extensions.
Sounds like a perfect candidate based on previous procurement decisions.
Thread Starter
Actually it's no longer a 'self jamming bomber', and if they were given to us permanently, plumbing in a probe would not be so major a problem.
And acquiring B-1 would delay the requirement for FOAS, at minimal cost.
And acquiring B-1 would delay the requirement for FOAS, at minimal cost.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...the lower wing surface, lifed at 15,000 hrs"
At low level (for which the aircraft was originally designed)? We would not be in that business.
"Politically and militarily there is no case for it because the USAF already performs that role in coalition operations"
Well, try to think of any role that the US military do not perform in coalition operations. You seem to be arguing for UK disarmament and passive resignation to the "Pax Americana". Some might agree. It would save us a lot of money and lives,
but destroy our national self-respect.
"Its not stealthy and its got ECM problems".
OK, but surely we are not in the market for an aircraft to penetrate organised air defences. They will be degraded before we commit manned aircraft. What we need is an aircraft with decent range/payload and good nav/attack systems. We do not even need the BI's performance. We need an airframe to do the job that the B52s have done for a couple of generations. A derivative of a civil type (like Nimrod) would do fine, but none exists or is likely to. The BIs would have done most of the things we need. In particular they would have delivered Nx the weight of ordnance to anywhere we are likely to need to deliver it than a couple of bloated carriersful of F35s. And probably at a fraction of the cost.
At low level (for which the aircraft was originally designed)? We would not be in that business.
"Politically and militarily there is no case for it because the USAF already performs that role in coalition operations"
Well, try to think of any role that the US military do not perform in coalition operations. You seem to be arguing for UK disarmament and passive resignation to the "Pax Americana". Some might agree. It would save us a lot of money and lives,
but destroy our national self-respect.
"Its not stealthy and its got ECM problems".
OK, but surely we are not in the market for an aircraft to penetrate organised air defences. They will be degraded before we commit manned aircraft. What we need is an aircraft with decent range/payload and good nav/attack systems. We do not even need the BI's performance. We need an airframe to do the job that the B52s have done for a couple of generations. A derivative of a civil type (like Nimrod) would do fine, but none exists or is likely to. The BIs would have done most of the things we need. In particular they would have delivered Nx the weight of ordnance to anywhere we are likely to need to deliver it than a couple of bloated carriersful of F35s. And probably at a fraction of the cost.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
"No - we'll keep the thoroughly inadequate Bore-nado staggering on. "
This "thoroughly inadequate" aircraft has performed better than any other allied bomber in recent years. Beagle, I've followed this forum for many months and have been part of the silent majority. You have been a source of inspiration to many and your experience is there for all to see. You have seriously let yourself down with the above ill-informed comment. My respect for you has seriously diminished.
"No - we'll keep the thoroughly inadequate Bore-nado staggering on. "
This "thoroughly inadequate" aircraft has performed better than any other allied bomber in recent years. Beagle, I've followed this forum for many months and have been part of the silent majority. You have been a source of inspiration to many and your experience is there for all to see. You have seriously let yourself down with the above ill-informed comment. My respect for you has seriously diminished.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Eight of the 33 grounded B-1Bs will be placed on static display at various Air Force bases, and the remaining 24 are destined for AMARC where 10 will be placed in "inviolate storage," as attrition airframes to replace loses and 14 will be cannibalized for parts to support the 60 active aircraft. (Loses have been averaging one every 2 years. Cut the force by a third, makes it every 3 years. Out of service in mid 2030s = 10 aircraft).
None to spare anyway.
B-1B EW - ALQ161:
Early on, it was discovered that this ECM system could not come close to its promised capabilities due to a number of serious technical problems. Subsequent testing of the ALQ-161A in March-June 1988 revealed more `major design deficiencies.' These indicated that the system would never meet contract specifications. The defensive electronics are the main criticism of the B-1 and they will never perform as hoped, they do function well enough to let the aircraft survive existing air defenses at low level. The ALQ-161A is reportedly inadequate against modern Soviet-origin radars and air defense systems. MTBF is around 13 hours.
B-1B EW upgrade:
Defensive System Upgrade Program (DSUP): The existing ALQ-161 defensive system, designed and optimized for the strategic nuclear mission (i.e., low altitude penetration against specific air defense threats) has limited effectiveness in the B-1B's new conventional mission. DSUP will remove most of the ALQ-161 system and replace it with an AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver and the RF Countermeasures (RFCM) portion of the Navy's IDECM program, which includes a techniques generator and a fiber optic towed decoy. A new low band on board jammer will be installed to provide the requisite threat coverage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight International - 24 Sep:
Boeing is fighting to reverse congressional cuts in B-1B funding that threaten to derail the troubled Block Defensive System Upgrade Programme (DSUP).
A Senate and House conference on the FY03 defence budget is scheduled this week and issues to be addressed include funding the planned B-1 Block F upgrade. The Senate has proposed a $40 million cut and the House $80 million, which Boeing B-1 programme manager Scott White says would effectively kill the DSUP. Last year the USAF announced plans to retire 33 of its 93 B-1s to save $1.4 billion, which was to pay for the DSUP.
The BAE Systems ALE-55 towed decoy at the heart of the DSUP has had deployment problems and is running late (Flight International, 27 August-2 September). A full capability test of the ALE-55 and the ALQ-214 jammer is scheduled for September next year.
---------------------------------------------------
This is ignoring blocks D, E and F of the CMUP update required to replace obsolete computers and displays, add L16 and to integrate modern weapons such as JSOW, JDAM and JASSM - all of which would cost.
None to spare anyway.
B-1B EW - ALQ161:
Early on, it was discovered that this ECM system could not come close to its promised capabilities due to a number of serious technical problems. Subsequent testing of the ALQ-161A in March-June 1988 revealed more `major design deficiencies.' These indicated that the system would never meet contract specifications. The defensive electronics are the main criticism of the B-1 and they will never perform as hoped, they do function well enough to let the aircraft survive existing air defenses at low level. The ALQ-161A is reportedly inadequate against modern Soviet-origin radars and air defense systems. MTBF is around 13 hours.
B-1B EW upgrade:
Defensive System Upgrade Program (DSUP): The existing ALQ-161 defensive system, designed and optimized for the strategic nuclear mission (i.e., low altitude penetration against specific air defense threats) has limited effectiveness in the B-1B's new conventional mission. DSUP will remove most of the ALQ-161 system and replace it with an AN/ALR-56M radar warning receiver and the RF Countermeasures (RFCM) portion of the Navy's IDECM program, which includes a techniques generator and a fiber optic towed decoy. A new low band on board jammer will be installed to provide the requisite threat coverage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flight International - 24 Sep:
Boeing is fighting to reverse congressional cuts in B-1B funding that threaten to derail the troubled Block Defensive System Upgrade Programme (DSUP).
A Senate and House conference on the FY03 defence budget is scheduled this week and issues to be addressed include funding the planned B-1 Block F upgrade. The Senate has proposed a $40 million cut and the House $80 million, which Boeing B-1 programme manager Scott White says would effectively kill the DSUP. Last year the USAF announced plans to retire 33 of its 93 B-1s to save $1.4 billion, which was to pay for the DSUP.
The BAE Systems ALE-55 towed decoy at the heart of the DSUP has had deployment problems and is running late (Flight International, 27 August-2 September). A full capability test of the ALE-55 and the ALQ-214 jammer is scheduled for September next year.
---------------------------------------------------
This is ignoring blocks D, E and F of the CMUP update required to replace obsolete computers and displays, add L16 and to integrate modern weapons such as JSOW, JDAM and JASSM - all of which would cost.
Last edited by ORAC; 2nd Oct 2002 at 23:11.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But imagine how much more useful it would be to carry an 8 Bornado load on one airframe and not have to launch from the border of your destination country. The point is that its horses for courses. We seem to have a short range tactical/medium range deliverly platform, when most of our requirements are at least medium range and in reality long range.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But imagine how much more useful it would be to carry an 8 Bornado load on one airframe and not have to launch from the border of your destination country. We seem to have a short range tactical/medium range deliverly platform, when most of our requirements are at least medium range and in reality long range
You know aircraft carriers are remarkably good at getting planes close to their destination = seems to me that having a nice fast aircraft carrier with lots of planes on would be useful to get those short range planes into action...
You know aircraft carriers are remarkably good at getting planes close to their destination = seems to me that having a nice fast aircraft carrier with lots of planes on would be useful to get those short range planes into action...